Devon McIntyre

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment, a psychological condition, and a concussion.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional impairment or a psychological condition, and noted that diagnosing a concussion was outside the scope of practice for the chiropractor who completed the OCF-3.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain or a psychological condition, preferring the respondent's medical examination which diagnosed soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices complied with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a psychological condition and a potential concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological condition or a concussion, relying on the family doctor's clinical notes and an insurer's examination that suggested malingering.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy services, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the denial notice was invalid under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the benefits payable.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notice was valid, as it provided clear medical and other reasons, including a request for specific pre-accident medical records.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, with no entitlement to the disputed treatment plan, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain or psychological impairment caused by the subject accident, noting a subsequent accident that aggravated his symptoms was not disclosed to his assessors.

The application was dismissed as the injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action as abandoned due to delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by overlooking strong evidence that the respondents suffered no actual prejudice from the litigation delay or the delay in bringing the set-aside motion.

The respondents' conduct, including requesting a waiver of defence and later serving a statement of defence, belied their claims of prejudice.

The court emphasized that the absence of prejudice and the importance of deciding cases on their merits should take precedence.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal orders were set aside.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain diagnosis more consistent with the evidence and approved the treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue payments but declined to order a special award under Regulation 664, finding no evidence the insurer acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The insurer requested reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant non-earner benefits, a psychological assessment, and a special award.

The adjudicator admitted late correspondence from the insurer as new evidence.

Based on this new evidence, the adjudicator varied the start date for the non-earner benefits from September 22, 2016, to October 25, 2016, and rescinded the special award regarding the non-earner benefits, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The adjudicator dismissed the insurer's arguments regarding the psychological assessment, finding no error in giving little weight to an insurer's examination report that was not in existence when the treatment plan was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and refused to pay for certain medical benefits beyond the $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued that pre-existing chronic low back pain precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting that clinical records and an independent medical examination showed only soft tissue injuries and no evidence that the pre-existing condition would prolong recovery.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the claims for benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought to dispute the denial of a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan more than two years after the insurer's refusal.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

However, applying the four-part test for an extension of time, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the limitation period or provide a compelling explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied several treatment plans and scheduled an insurer's examination (IE) for a psychological assessment, which the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denied benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance at the IE.

Consequently, pursuant to section 55 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application until she attended the examination.

The substantive issues were not considered.